Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
If they are appearing from under the floor, perhaps there is a nest in the sub-floor area. Some species that are capable of doing serious damage have an obvious nest mound and so are usually not a problem because the mound is noticed and destroyed. Sometimes a mound from such species will start in a sub-floor area and can develop to threaten structural timbers if it goes unnoticed due to a lack of inspections.
Leaky pipes or shower recesses can encourage termites since they need a source of moisture.
They can also start a nest in a wall cavity.
If they are not just generally flying about outside and some getting in, but rather seem to be coming from in or under the house, then certainly you should alert the owner.
But isn’t the problem nuisance from flying termites? If so, the questions are: 1) Have they appeared because there is an undetected nest internal to the building? or 2) Are they getting in through lack of insect screens on windows or other openings to the outside?
If it is 2, then it will stop soon but there is the more general problem that the unit seems to lack insect screens to keep out flies, mosquitos etc.
If it is 1), then the flying termites will still stop soon (termite flights tend to be brief and annual) but some structural timbers might be about to collapse too!
If it is 2), then the flying termites might be from a nearby nest of a species which is a threat to structural timber or it might not be.
There are many things that a concerned building owner can do to reduce the risk of termite damage but that is a topic I can write on another day.
How are the alates (flying adults setting out from a nest to pair up and start a new nest) getting in? Don’t you have flyscreens on windows?
If you have very large numbers, there must be a nest nearby. I think the OC would be most interested in finding the nest, rather than worrying about the short-term matter of a flight of alates.
Bear in mind that many termite species are innocuous and don’t attack structural timbers. On the other hand, some species can do serious damage in a short time, especially in coastal and northern areas.
Fortunately, where I live (ACT) there are only two species that present a serious threat and neither works very quickly, so there is no reason to panic if active termites are found. Leave them alone and call a pest control person.
A considerable annoyance, however, is that our local termite inspectors frequently don’t bother to distinguish two Nausutitermes species, one of which is a serious concern – tunnels 10s of meters and attacks sound timber, the other of which only eats already rotting timber and does not travel far. I am a bit cynical about why they don’t bother to distinguish these two. They are not that hard to tell apart.
In this instance it seems the path of least resistance and quickest efficacy was for individuals to go directly to the local council rather than address the matter through the OC’s power to approve or disapprove unit alterations, especially as, in this case, even if the OC approved these alterations, they were contrary to the council’s planning requirements and would therefore have failed at that stage of approval.
However, some unit owner alterations or erections would not offend any planning rules or development approvals yet could offend OC decisions about what sorts of alterations should be permitted and how they are to be approved.
I am most familiar with the situation in the ACT but expect other places are similar. Here the Unit Titles (Management) Act leaves the process for approving erections and alterations in or on a unit to the OC’s rules (aka by-laws or articles) rather than being set in stone in the body of the Act. The default rule provided by the ACT’s Act is that all erections and alterations require an unopposed resolution of a general meeting. [Some other states distinguish major and minor alterations and require different classes of resolution.]
Rules may be amended by special resolution (in the ACT, a majority in favour and fewer than one third opposed). Therefore, an OC can resolve to require some less stringent standard than an unopposed resolution for alterations. OCs can resolve to amend the rule in many ways.
Our OC deleted the requirement for a general meeting resolution but retained the requirement for OC approval. The consequence is that our Executive Committee can approve (or not). Our EC however is constrained by other resolutions of general meetings which require consultation with nearby units and certain style and architectural constraints to be met before the EC can approve a proposal on behalf of the OC.
Now, to the question, if a unit owner erects or alters a structure without approval, that owner will have failed to comply with a rule and can be issued with a rules infringement notice (other terms in other states) telling them that they must rectify the matter in a particular way by some reasonable specified date. The Act sets out what is required for a valid rules infringement notice. I expect this is similar in other states. One of the requirements is that the notice informs the unit owner that it is an offence to fail to comply with a valid notice.
If a person fails to comply, the OC, or the EC on behalf of the OC, can go to the Tribunal seeking an order that the person complies with the notice. In the event that the person fails to comply with the Tribunal order they have committed a further offence.
On the one occasion that all the above occurred where I am, we then applied for and received an ‘enforcement order’ by which the OC was authorised to do that which the unit owner had been ordered to do but had failed to do. IE. The OC was then able to appoint a representative (in practice a suitable tradesperson) to enter the unit and remove the unapproved structure.
If someone digs in their heels, it can become a drawn out process but you can get there in the end if the matter is clear cut and you still scrupulously to the proper processes.
In the meantime, if the matter seems likely to have insurance implications, then the OC should inform its insurer. The insurer should be reassured that the OC is diligently pursuing its options to rectify the situation. If the insurer were to say that the risk causes them to increase the premium, then the OC should also apply to the Tribunal for an order that the unit owner reimburse the OC for the extra cost caused by their failure to comply with the rules.
Yes. I was thinking of the SCA. If they are no help, perhaps a small but respectable strata management company in another city (so you are not in competition) could act as consultants taking you through the setting up that they did themselves. Otherwise, perhaps strata specialist lawyers might be aware of the pitfalls.
While this does seem to have been resolved via the local council, an alternative route could have been to enforce the OC rules/by-laws/articles that most places have specifying the approval necessary to erect or alter a structure on the unit. With only 5 units and an alternative route available via the council, I suspect other owners might have thought it more diplomatic and less harmful to happy co-existence to go via the council approval route.
Each state has a professional body for strata managers and there is an over-arching national body. Can’t recall their name right now but I’m sure you could find it. They should be able to advise. I think there are requirements such as having a real estate licence.
Speaking as one who has been driving an EV for 9 years, I would say, if possible, that the best would be a relatively cheap, slow, standard outlet for each unit at its allocated space. Icing on the cake might be a single fast charger in one of the visitor spaces.
People who don’t have EVs tend to assume that you would want to charge like you do now with petrol. That is, that you go to a special place for refilling, that refilling is rapid, that you only refill when near empty.
In practice, with an EV, it is more convenient to plug in for a top up whenever you are home. Home charging does not need to be rapid. If you are home for a few hours before going out again you get a useful top up even from an ordinary 10A power point even if you are not full before going out for another local trip. If you are plugged in overnight, you will be full in the morning and you don’t care whether you got to full at midnight or 3AM.
Ideally, single outlets in allocated spaces would be wired back to the meters for the individual units. That way, electricity consumption would appear on the units’ own meters automatically without any need to involve the OC. Unit owners would be free to choose time of use metering or any other deal offered by the retailer of their choice. The units could also fund the wiring as required as EV uptake proceeds. The OC just needs to make sure that the wiring meets standards and is done by a competent person in a consistent manner. I would suggest the OC should not permit more than 15A outlets to avoid overloading the supply to the site. Also, to ensure that the last person is able to have the same quality of facility as the first person.
If it is not practical to run cabling from the unit meters to the allocated parking spaces, then the OC will have to meter what it supplies to individual unit and bill those units accordingly.
It is possible that the available supply will not cope with a carpark full of cars all charging at their maximum rates. Systems exist to manage this automatically. A standard EVSE (electric vehicle supply equipment) can ‘talk’ to the on-board charger and negotiate the charge rate. So, for example, a set of linked EVSEs might start out with (say) 15 cars plugged in attempting to charge from an 100A supply (a single typical domestic supply). The EVSEs will tell all the cars that they can only draw 6A each. Charging will proceed slowly. Some of the cars are likely to have only driven a short distance and will be full quite quickly even with this slow charging. After (say) 5 or 6 cars have dropped off, the EVSEs will tell the remaining cars they can now charge at 10A. Charging proceeds more rapidly, though still slow, and eventually a few more are full. The EVSEs tell the remaining cars they can charge at yet higher rates, while staying under the 100A max for the supply. Eventually there might be only a couple left and they are told they can charge at (say) 32A. One of the cars might be able to take 32A but another might max out at 15A anyway. Such systems can record the total kWhs sent to each outlet for billing purposes.
Further elaborations might be that the OC gets time of use metering so that charging off peak is cheaper. Those who want to charge at peak times can do so and might charge relatively quickly as others are avoiding the peak. They would pay a premium for the privilege. Those who don’t need the charge immediately would have their cars set to only ask for charging in off peak times and would save some money.
A tricky question for retrofitting is how to fund it when only a few people will have an EV at first. In my OC, I have worked out that we would probably have an interim arrangement whereby some ordinary 15A outlets are installed at the unit owners cost as a temporary measure for the first 3-4 units in each of our five parking areas. This would be within the spare capacities of our five existing electricity supply boxes. A sub-meter on each of the lines to each of the 15A outlets would let the OC bill each unit for its consumption at a flat per kWh rate. Eventually, we would have to remove those outlets and instead install a comprehensive system of linked EVSEs as described above.
I don’t think people would want just a single or a few shared charge points in a visitor area. You want to plug in when you get home and let charging sort itself out. You don’t want to have to always charge at a rapid rate (not good for the battery) and you don’t want to have to go back to the carpark to move the car to let others charge and you don’t want to find you have been blocked from charging by other cars sitting in the charging spaces.
Sensible advice from LP. I recall discussions with a playground designer. He commented that some important safety features are subtle things that are not set out in any standard. In particular, he said comfortable seating for adults encourages supervision by the responsible adults or just improves the odds that there will be any adult on hand if a child needs help, which improves safety.
Perhaps a generous and well-meaning resident has donated them to the OC to enhance the comfort and usefulness of the existing community facilities, the BBQ and pool.
I have been known to just wear the time and/or minor monetary cost of doing things to improve our community facilities. Sometimes it is just easier. I am careful to not do anything too substantial or irreversible and I believe I am reasonably aware of what might be overstepping the mark.
Have you informed your insurer that the unit is vacant and the situation appears to be long-term? If the insurance premium would be higher, there may be a mechanism to charge the unit owner more for that. In the ACT there is a provision for charging an owner more if they cause the OC to incur additional expenses due to a wilful or negligent act or omission or a breach of the OC rules.
In the ACT, possibly similar in Victoria, the Act requires: “A unit owner must give the owners corporation for the units plan written notice of the details of any of the following events within 14 days after the event happens: … a vacancy in occupancy of the unit that is expected to be longer than a continuous period of 30 days.“
One of the default rules (aka by-laws) is a catch-all requirement that all unit owners must comply with laws in force in the ACT. That includes our strata Act. Therefore, it is a breach of the rules to leave a unit unoccupied without notifying the OC about what is going on. Failure to the comply with the Act and consequently the rules and thereby causing the OC an increase in its insurance cost, for which you can charge the unit owner, might be way to up the ante if you have similar provisions.
@Lady Penelope said:
Car parking spaces that are adjacent to walls, fences, and obstructions should be made 0.3m wider than the standard width to account for car door opening…2.4m is the minimum in the standard. With a wall or similar on one side the minimum becomes 2.7m. If the parking spaces were very generous to start with (say 3m or more), some obstacles might be tolerable.
Reading on this forum and talking to others might help you to assemble the relevant facts clearly and succinctly and formulate a set of pertinent questions. Being prepared can save you time, and consequently money, when you talk to a lawyer, but take Scotland’s advice and use a proper lawyer for that advice.
And perhaps I’ll try a briefer answer: I think the advice from the various Tribunal people is consistent. They can order a fine in accordance with the Strata Act for a by-law breach. If the Tribunal’s order is not complied with, it is different offence. It is no longer a strata by-law breach but an offence against whatever legislation says you must comply with Tribunal orders. For that, I suspect, based on the ACT’s approach, you can seek a punitive order and/or an enforcement order from the next court up.
It makes sense. I wonder if the NSW has been brought into line with the ACT law, or, more likely, both have been brought into line with somewhere else.
Here in the ACT the Tribunal also does not do the enforcing of its orders. That goes to the Magistrates Court which has the power to make enforcement orders for both Tribunal and Magistrates Court orders.
Our recent matter described above is similar to your pergola on common property example. Rather than just seeking a fine, we sought an order that the unit owner must remove her unapproved structure. We could have also sought a fine but the committee decided that we would look better for focussing just on the end-game, which was to remove a frankly ridiculous, unapproved and unapprovable structure that demonstrably failed to serve the purpose that it was purported to have.
Our Tribunal member did suggest that if we just applied for a fine and the fine was paid but the structure was not removed, we could just keep issuing infringement notices and the owner could keep paying the fines. The clear suggestion being made to the owner was that this would get expensive for her before the EC gave up.
Later in the process, we asked, ‘What if we get the orders we are seeking but the unit owner does not remove the structure? Could we also have an order that the OC is authorised to enter the unit and remove the structure and bill the unit owner?’ The Tribunal’s Decision and Reasons document set out a legal argument for why it would be within the Tribunal’s powers to give such an order but also why she declined to do so. Her reason was that it was not necessary when a process for enforcing orders already exists. She then set out very clearly and helpfully what the process would be to obtain an enforcement order of the Tribunal’s orders from the Magistrates Court.
In your pergola example, since it is on common property, the OC has no access restriction. In that case, I would apply for:
1) an order that the lot owner remove the pergola from the common property and restore the common property to its original condition by some reasonable date,
2) if order one is not complied with, an order that the fine for the by-law breach be imposed,
3) if order one is not complied with, an order that the Owners Corporation may remove and dispose of the pergola as it sees fit,
4) if the Owners Corporation removes and disposes of the pergola in accordance with order three, an order that the unit owner must reimburse the OC’s reasonable costs not exceeding $X00* and its Tribunal application fee ($XXX).
*Include a quote from a tradesperson for removal and disposal of the pergola in the application and round it up to get $X00.